|
Got to love "free speech" (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
thats hillarious horse dude. the left doesn't play on it's constituent's fears and doesn't always see the worst possible scenario in any given situation? get real.
...and besides, a Republican didn't imply it. Sharpton did.
the left is same as it was then. same strategy. same tactics. different technology.
that generation has molded just about every social and political aspect of the lives of the following ones you can imagine.
i don't know. are you saying we're beyond riots?:haha:
i'm saying there won't be riots. but if there are, the far left sure as hell isn't going to riot at the behest of Rush Limbaugh. |
There was no such thing implied. I mean holy , Al Sharpton's been very public regarding the Sean Bell situation, so I guess I can't leave my apartment today for fear of riots in the streets of New York since they just got acquitted. In fact, the opposite: "The Rev. Al Sharpton called for calm Wednesday. He was accompanied by Bell's fiancee and other supporters on the steps of City Hall." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html)
The left isn't the same as 1968, as much as you'd like to argue. I'm sure you'd know exactly what it was like since you were around for those riots, right? The activist nature of the left has severely declined since then, so much so that we hardly bat an eye over Iraq.
I'm not saying we're beyond them, but to infer from Sharpton's "there will be trouble in Denver" statement that there will be riots started by Obama supporters is a stretch and you and Rush both know it.
We all know that Limbaugh won't be inspiring lefties to riot, but what his comments provide is the incentive for some group of right-wing nutjobs to go into Denver and try to incite a riot under the left's name. It's the exact same thing that he's been doing with voter registration in order to get his supporters to manipulate the Democratic Party's nomination process. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
There was no such thing implied. I mean holy , Al Sharpton's been very public regarding the Sean Bell situation, so I guess I can't leave my apartment today for fear of riots in the streets of New York since they just got acquitted. In fact, the opposite: "The Rev. Al Sharpton called for calm Wednesday. He was accompanied by Bell's fiancee and other supporters on the steps of City Hall." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25...rial/index.html) |
can you somehow reconcile what you just said with this?
| quote: | Sharpton vows to 'close this city' after officer acquittals
Apr 26, 4:42 PM (ET)
By VERENA DOBNIK
NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to "close this city down" to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends.
"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."
Sharpton was joined by the family of 23-year-old Sean Bell - a black man - and a friend of Bell who was wounded in the 2006 shooting outside a Queens strip club. Two of the three officers charged were also black.
The rally at Sharpton's office was followed by a 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"
Fifty of the marchers carried white placards bearing big black numbers for each of the police bullets fired at Bell and his friends.
Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this coming week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
"They never accused Sean Bell of doing anything. Then why is he dead?" Sharpton asked, his voice roaring with anger. Authorities "have shown now that they will not hold police accountable. Well, guess what? If you won't, we will!"
"Shut it down! Shut it down!" the crowd chanted, standing up and applauding wildly.
Sharpton didn't say exactly how they would protest the acquittals of the officers who fired the 50 shots. He said Bell's supporters could demonstrate all over the city, from Wall Street to the home of Justice Arthur Cooperman, who on Friday acquitted the three detectives after a nonjury trial.
Sitting behind Sharpton as he spoke were Bell's parents, his sister and Nicole Paultre Bell, who took her fiance's name after his death.
"The justice system let me down," Paultre Bell told the crowd in a soft voice. "April 25, 2008: They killed Sean all over again. That's what it felt like to us."
It was her first public comment since she stormed out of a courtroom Friday after the NYPD detectives were cleared in Bell's killing as he left his bachelor party.
One of Bell's companions, Joseph Guzman, also spoke briefly on Saturday, saying: "We've got a long fight."
>LINK<
|
Sharpton's a f**kin idiot. his "neo-segregational Afrocentric grievance politics" is so played it's becoming pathetic.
who knows wtf this guy wants to "incite", but none of it has any constructional value in the least. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
can you somehow reconcile what you just said with this? |
That's funny, I was about to post the same story as evidence that he's not in favor of rioting. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
That's funny, I was about to post the same story as evidence that he's not in favor of rioting. |
lets get one thing straight. you have no idea what it is he's in favor of exactly, whether that be in Denver or NYC. do yourself a favor and judge the man by what HIS words have, in fact, incited and not what you think in your naive judgement.
| quote: | 1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by,” he warns malignantly, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms.” Some protesters shout, “Burn down the Jew store!” and simulate striking a match. “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers,” says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler. |
i use "naive" in the most respectful terms because you originally thought "trouble in Denver" meant a reversal of voting fortune among superdelegates. you think "shutting down NYC" doesn't have any violent implications that would almost certainly come with it. and while it is noble to think that way, it comes across as young and naive. this is Sharpton your dealing with. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
lets get one thing straight. you have no idea what it is he's in favor of exactly, whether that be in Denver or NYC. do yourself a favor and judge the man by what HIS words have, in fact, incited and not what you think in your naive judgement.
i use "naive" in the most respectful terms because you originally thought "trouble in Denver" meant a reversal of voting fortune among superdelegates. you think "shutting down NYC" doesn't have any violent implications that would almost certainly come with it. and while it is noble to think that way, it comes across as young and naive. this is Sharpton your dealing with. |
I said before that I don't like Sharpton, but for NYC and the Bell-related verdicts, he's flatly stated that he doesn't want violence. Why you think that Denver would be different is beyond me.
BTW, the last comment you linked was 13 years ago. It doesn't make it right and his anti-Jew comments have always pissed me off (even thought I'm not a Jew).
Dare I say he's become more moderate because he realized that his previous methods weren't working. Again, don't like Sharpton, but you and Rush are projecting what you'd like to think, not facts.
Oh, and you don't use naive in the most respectful of terms because it's not a respectful term. Don't try to play that bull "but I'm being nice" card with me.
And do you forget that I live in NYC. I hardly think that he'll shut anything down. I'll be at work every day. Stores won't be shut down. It'll be an inconvenience, but it's not going "shut NYC down." |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Don't try to play that bull "but I'm being nice" card with me. |
noted. anything else i can help you with? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
first off, this is the first and probably last time i'll defend Rush here.
what he's implying is that he wants the left to riot. he expects them to riot, just as Al never-had-a-real-job-in-his-life Sharpton has stated before: "There will be trouble" if Obama does not make the nomination.
he's goading the far-left genius's to do what they did in 1968. |
1. Your jump in logic is absurd.
2. The Rev. Al Sharpton has had a real job before... as ummm, yeah, a Reverend. He's also a syndicated radio host... like, ummm, yeah, Rush Limbaugh.
3. What's your point, exactly? To say that Rush can make an overt call to violence because the Rev. Al Sharpton, based on your own personal powers of perception, may or may not have made an implied one? |
|
|
| fr0st |
| The sole reason I read tranceaddict anymore is to read GHB's post's..... Viva la intelligence. Give me a call this week lets get a drink. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
1. Your jump in logic is absurd. |
like i've repeated in this thread, wtf are we supposed to glean from Al exploiting-grievance-politics-is-my-only-purpose-in-life Sharpton's words? in addition, why should anyone take him seriously as a disciple of the good Dr. King if he's going to lob ambiguous threats whenever his OPINION has been offended?
Rush is playing a game with his words. not Rush's words, Sharpton's words.
| quote: | | 2. The Rev. Al Sharpton has had a real job before... as ummm, yeah, a Reverend. He's also a syndicated radio host... like, ummm, yeah, Rush Limbaugh. |
thats great.
| quote: | | 3. What's your point, exactly? To say that Rush can make an overt call to violence because the Rev. Al Sharpton may or may not have made an implied one? |
look, who are you defending here, Sharpton or yourself? are you saying Rush can summon far-left minions to do his bidding in Denver? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
like i've repeated in this thread, wtf are we supposed to glean from Al exploiting-grievance-politics-is-my-only-purpose-in-life Sharpton's words? in addition, why should anyone take him seriously as a disciple of the good Dr. King if he's going to lob ambiguous threats whenever his OPINION has been offended? |
Why should anyone take you seriously if you're going to lob ad hominems whenever your OPINION has been offended?
I'm not defending Sharpton so much as calling you out for being a hypocrite. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Why should anyone take you seriously if you're going to lob ad hominems whenever your OPINION has been offended?
I'm not defending Sharpton so much as calling you out for being a hypocrite. |
wow. expected a little more from you, but ok whatever.
i've never sold myself, much more, exploited others through the image of Dr. Martin Luther King. my words have never been directly attributed to civil disobedience, violence, or worse, death. Sharpton, on the other hand... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
wow. expected a little more from you, but ok whatever.
i've never sold myself, much more, exploited others through the image of Dr. Martin Luther King. my words have never been directly attributed to civil disobedience, violence, or worse, death. Sharpton, on the other hand... |
I didn't compare you to Sharpton. I called you a hypocrite on your own merits.
You are incredibly reactionary, throwing ad hominems at anyone that offends your opinion, and yet you condemn anyone that does something similar. I simply say you're both wrong. I don't want to get in a debate about whether Sharpton has ever actually done anything to facilitate violence, or worse, death - but he hasn't. |
|
|
|
|
